Allowed

Devendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Nov 2020BAIL/38536/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Court granted bail to Devendra in a murder case under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. The court found that prima facie a case for bail was made out without expressing a final opinion on merits, releasing him on personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions on attendance.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was allowed and the applicant was released on bail subject to a personal bond and two local sureties.

Devendra Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38536 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Devendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Singh,Laxmi Kant Bhatt

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 278 of 2019, under Sections 302, 34 IPC, Police Station - Inchauli, District - Meerut with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶8

The First Information Report of this incident was lodged by the police personnel SI, namely, Shri Dharmendra Shyoran. It is mentioned in the First Information Report that the complainant received information on his mobile phone No. 9411666000 that deceased Satyendra was done to death by his family members and after murdering him they had run away from the house. It was also informed that dead body of Satyendra was lying in the house. It was also told by the neighbours that noise of quarrel was coming out from the house and after incident the family members of the deceased were seen running away from the house.

¶9

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant-accused is quite innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that no one has witnessed the incident and there is no other circumstantial evidence that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased. It is further argued that the deceased was a drunkard and he might have been murdered by someone else. Thereafter, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has parity with co-accused namely Rajendra, Daya Ram, Rahul and Smt. Rajni who have already been released by Coordinate Benches of this Court, their bail orders are annexed on page No. 54 onward. It is further argued that the applicant is in jail since 04.06.2019 and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for the parties, period of detention of the applicant and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out.

¶12

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶13

Let applicant Devendra involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

(1). The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;

¶15

(2). The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

(3). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court may initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(4). The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the learned counsel for the applicant along with a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned

¶19

Court/Authority/Official. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶20

Order Date :- 23.11.2020 LBY

Devendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vindesh Vs State of U.P.

Bheem Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Vs State of U.P.

Shah Mohmmad Vs State of U.P.

Khajju Sharma Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ramkesh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.